Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

eldavojohn writes "You're probably familiar with Microsoft's long runningassault on Android but, as noticed by Groklaw, Barnes and Noble has fired back saying, 'Microsoft has asserted patents that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent infringement litigation.' Barnes and Noble goes on to assert that Microsoft violates 'antitrust laws, threatens competition for mobile device operating systems and is further evidence of Microsoft's efforts to dominate and control Android and other open source operating systems.' The PDF of the filing from two days ago is rife with accusations including, 'Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to control the activities of and extract fees from the designers, developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders, and other mobile devices, that employ the Android Operating System.' and 'Microsoft has falsely and without justification asserted that its patents somehow provide it with the right to prohibit device manufacturers from employing new versions of the Android Operating System, or third party software.' Barnes and Noble does not mince words when explaining Microsoft's FUD campaign to both the public and developers in its attempts to suppress Android. It's good to see PJ still digging through massive court briefs to bring us the details on IP court battles."

We have over the years seen giants like even IBM carefully thread around Microsoft, pussyfooting while Microsoft uses a chainmail. Its very refreshing to see Barnes and Noble taking the leaf out of their mouth and speak out, saying what everyone already thinks but wouldnt dare say.

If this keeps up, the discovery phase could be very interesting. Imagine getting subpoenas out to Motorola, HTC, Samsung and the others being extorted for specifics about their collisions with Microsoft? I would imagine that being of enormous interest to the EU and the DOJ.

Hmmm. I really like the implications you raise here. I'm very pleased to see B&N go on the offensive as they do have counterclaims attached to their answer, too. If the DOJ wake up and the EU take notice, this could get really expensive for Microsoft. And I, as you, am really looking forward to discovery. I hope there is a worthy successor to Groklaw to track this.

I don't know what you consider to be an invention but if you consider This is not that [uspto.gov] to be one of those thoughts so far above mortal men that Microsoft should be granted exclusive rights to it's use then I have a whole bunch of other ideas that I'd like to sell you.

The fact is that when you start patenting basic concepts and then throwing them around as the legal right to deny competitors entry to market. Then maybe you've gone to far and maybe it's about time someone said as much.

Having gone to read the article, I believe that B&N is contending that MS and Nokia formed an agreement to use their mutual patents in a way that is an antitrust violation (collusion). They are in addition claiming that MS is demanding licensing terms that far outweigh the significance of their patents as a method of stifling competition. There is actual precedence for such claims being supported in court. I know of a specific case where a company lost its patent infringement suit because it had refused

For starters, how about reasonable terms and prices? The terms seems very awkward, the licensees only get to use a specific version of Android.

This for a price that is double the per unit price of Windows Phone 7.

You either use WP7 for half the price of a per device patent license, or get stuck in a very awkward position where updating your phones to newer versions of Android becomes a very difficult and cumbersome process involving Microsoft, or you license WP7 instead, from Microsoft. This can actually be

For starters, how about reasonable terms and prices? The terms seems very awkward, the licensees only get to use a specific version of Android.

New versions of android may infringe more than the one they are are acquiring a license for. Microsoft is offering B&N a chance to license the specific IP rather than a blanket coverage of "Android version X" but is asking for an NDA (a pretty standard thing) which B&N refuses to sign onto.

This for a price that is double the per unit price of Windows Phone 7.

..and is infinite the amount of the per unit price Microsoft charges in licensing fees for the pound of american cheese I just purchased. If WP7 also ran android (and thus used the exact same set of IP,) you wou

"New versions of android may infringe more than the one they are are acquiring a license for."

If it is so, it is Microsoft burden to call the people using such a version and negotiate a license for those new patents it is using. A license agreement stating "you shall not offer up-to-dte services" is just anticompetitive.

"Why is it that the same people that say that WP7 is so horrible, are also the ones so damn surprised when licensing it is cheaper than licensing the be-all-end-all of mobile OS's known as

but is asking for an NDA (a pretty standard thing) which B&N refuses to sign onto.

MS asked for an NDA just for a meeting to tell B&N what patents B&N infringes and how they infringe them. If that's a standard thing, something is wrong with the patent system - patents are supposed to encourage disclosure.

I see that at least one lawyer from Cravath, Swain & Moore is representing B&N. Based on how they handled the SCO lawsuit, I would think they know what they're doing. They also have a couple of lawyers from Kenyon & Kenyon, LLC. Kenyon seems pretty adept at defending from patent infringement suits, too. I'd say that B&N has enough legal sense about them to defend themselves well.

No, what they're saying is that MS is misrepresenting the value of the patents in the hopes of shutting down Android or at very least damaging the competition. And that would be a no no for a company with a dominant position in the OS market and an interest in having a larger presence in the mobile market.

Theoretically the courts could force MS to get rid of their patents or license them under reasonable terms. If you just own a bunch of patents but aren't a dominant player in a market you can ask pretty mu

B&N seems to be trying to claim that enforcing ones patents is an anti-trust violation, but patents are government sanctioned monopolies so that's a ridiculous argument. They seem to be throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

Actually, it's not that simple. They basically flat-out say, in addition to all that other stuff, that the Nook and Nook Color do not violate any of the patents that Microsoft is claiming they do. But they also point out that MS has a larger scheme and is doing things that are quite likely illegal in anti-trust law, plus they've done things that should invalidate one of the patents (deliberately withholding prior art). And they use MS's own claims against them, pointing out that MS claims their patents g

B&N had not been in the software no computer business EVER so this is all relatively new to them and when a company like Microsoft, using the tactics they've employed for 20+ years, B&N probably looked at them and said WTF are you kidding. Remember when the netbooks hit the market and after one hot year of Linux netbooks, we heard the head of the Taiwanese Manufacturing Association publicly state "they" are afraid of Microsoft on laptops, notebooks and devices like that and not so much on things li

... "but that isn't an important feature, so I can infringe on it without paying"...

Yeah - don't they know that's a copyright violators argument: "I'd have never paid for this crappy album so it's ok that I downloaded it." They really need to get their faulty IP defense straight if they want to screw it up in the standard model.

Now a decent argument would be that MS is trying to enforce patent claims outside the scope of the original approved claim. Often this will be done by badgering someone with the general patent preamble without getting into the "bulleted" specific claims of the in

... "but that isn't an important feature, so I can infringe on it without paying"... /
Yeah don't they know that's a copyright violators argument: "I'd have never paid for this [terrible] album so it's OK that I downloaded it."

Microsoft is saying in public that the OS infringes their patents. In court, all they brought were these patents over browser and PDF-viewer features. Taking the image-loading feature as a particular case, even if that patent is upheld, they can patch the software to load web

From the licensing that other vendors such as HTC have done with MS it is pretty clear that they do have some patents that apply. So B&N needs to license them like everyone else.

That is an absurd argument. The fact that HTC et al have deals with MS means jack concerning the validity of these patents. You have no idea what circumstances surrounded the licensing deals between MS and those other vendors. Any legal department at a major corp. that just says "everybody else is doing it (licensing) so we should too" thus giving up a major competitive advantage like using the free operating system Android, should be summarily fired.

There are a couple of reasons a company will use patents offensively. One big one is simple: to make money. In this case, it's fairly critical that the company has either very solid and very current patents, that they have hundreds or thousands of patents to throw your way, and/or that they price the patent licensing such that it's ultimately more expensive to fight than to pay.

There may be other reasons for a company to license, too. For example, Microsoft could be after money, but if they're going after a

If you've been around for even a short time, a license agreement does not mean a patent is valid. It only means one company justified the expense of the licensing over the cost of fighting it and what that might bring. HTC probably signed the deal because it ended up being paid to go back to shipping Windows phone OS based devices. We've seen Asus decide to take an old version of Windows( XP ) and replace Linux on their netbooks even though it meant putting more hardware on the devices and running the pric

You can't just say, "but that isn't an important feature, so I can infringe on it without paying".

Which is why Barnes & Noble aren't saying that.
They are saying "but that isn't an important feature, and we don't use it"
and "but that isn't an important feature, so Microsoft shouldn't be able to charge more for the patent license than it costs to license Window Phone 7"

'Microsoft intends to utilize its patents to control the activities of and extract fees from the designers, developers, and manufacturers of devices, including tablets, eReaders, and other mobile devices, that employ the Android Operating System.'

It would be a strange system where a patent holder couldn't do these things. What precisely does B&N think patents are for?

Unless whoever in legal wrote/checked out B&N's statement is a complete moron, I assume that that particular line is attached to the broader claim that Microsoft is using patents that are either invalid, overbroad, or irrelevant; but excessively expensive/time consuming to challenge, to do that.

As you say, patents are supposed to confer an exclusive right to the holder; but(given the seriously uneven quality of patents granted, and the substantial expense of litigation) the allegation that a company is using its patent portfolio to illegitimately assert exclusive control to which it is not entitled certainly seems to be well within the realm of plausible.

It will take slogging through each patent to know for sure; but the strange 'linux violates our patents, we just won't say exactly which ones' game that MS played for a number of years doesn't fill me with optimism concerning the sound foundation and good faith of their android-related claims...

"Unless whoever in legal wrote/checked out B&N's statement is a complete moron, fuzzyfuzzyfungus

'Microsoft is misusing these patents as part of a scheme to try to eliminate or marginalize the competition to its own Windows Phone 7 mobile device operating system posed by the open source Android operating system and other open source operating systems.. Barnes & Noble denies the remaining allegations set forth in this paragraph. 15. Denied. 16. Denied. 17. Denied`. link [groklaw.net]

Given the extraordinary broadness and obviousness of the patents mentioned in the filing, It would appear that an extraordinary variety of software released in the past ~25 years, probably including Android, does violate them. It would also appear that none of them should have been granted.

'the “display of a webpage’s content before the background image is received, allowing users to interact with the page faster,”' Wow. Feel the innovation...

I was wondering what would happen if someone patented "withholding the display of a webpage until the background image is loaded, assuring the design's unity" or similar crap. Would we have to give up using background images altogether?

Microsoft has listed 6 of the patents, but claims there are more. Microsoft revealed/introduced these 6 patents and claimed that there were more and they could shut down Android but wouldn't explain more without an NDA. B&N views patents as public record (well, because they are) and saw no need to sign an NDA to reveal the rest of the infringing patents. So, in this document, they are claiming Microsoft is being deliberately dishonest in attempt to extort money from companies.

This parent needs to be modded up. I know that very few of us are surprised that Microsoft went SCO on this, but requiring an NDA to see which patents were violated just reeks of patent trolling. Last I checked, *we're supposed to know that patents exist and what they cover so we can avoid violating them!*

Of course, I'm sure that they also acted in good business faith and contacted the other parties about these patents to allow Google et. al. to fix and remove the offending code. I'm also completely convinced that the patents in question provide true innovation and are worth licensing.

Just another case of "Software patents gone wild." Remember American brethren, contact your congresspeople and tell them to go EU style in regards to software patents because our current system continues to prioritize litigation over innovation.

There's an awfully good chance Microsoft knows these "violating patents" are drek. They also understand the difficulty of fighting patents in court, simply because the presumption is that a granted patent is valid. It's a long and expensive process.

However, with the patents revealed, all sorts of other parties get involved. And if there's a patent of absurdity in these patents, whether its blatent disregard to obvious prior art, or simply Microsoft making absurd claims of what they do cover, the case could

Probably part of this is Microsoft avoiding being sued for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement in a venue they don't like. I don't remember the case law reference, but there was a ruling a few years ago that essentially says that if you seek licensing fees for a patent or if you threaten litigation in assertion of a patent, then the potential licensee/infringer has a cause of action to sue for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement. In such a case, whichever party makes it to court first essent

This reminds me of the SCO lawsuit -- where they can't tell you what they are suing your for because the patented methods are 'secret'...um, then how would they be patented? You can't patent something without filing a detailed enough description to verify whether or not something infringes -- so if MS says an NDA is needed to tell you about the "patents", then it's an admission that they are not filed.

Did the US move to 'first to patent'? If not, and we are still using 'first to invent', I suppose MS could

Because it's easier to decide whether or not to pay if you've actually seen the patents that are supposedly involved. Additionally as soon as B&N starts filing papers against MS involving the alleged patents they show up in the public record, MS would have to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the judge that those public records shouldn't be made public. They could do that, but I doubt they'd be successful.

Because it's easier to decide whether or not to pay if you've actually seen the patents that are supposedly involved.

That's not the question. The question is why should B&N have to sign an NDA to be informed of what they're infringing.

Patents aren't secret. They are a matter of public record, and anyone can look them up. The second anyone who claims patent infringement starts acting as if they are secret, well, it's SCO all over again, and we have a pretty clear warning sign the case is bogus.

It would be bad enough if it was priced at a similar price as WP7 but double the price?

That is the whole point — try to make Android unattractive to consumers because it is too expensive.

I would really like to see Microsoft try to compete on the strength of its products rather than strength of its lawyers.
That they don't seems to me very telling: they can't and so use lawyers to distort the market to make their inferior products attractive.

If history is any indication, even if they lose this round they'll be back with more and more FUD and anti-competitive behavior anyway. It's not like multiple anti-trust findings against them has stopped them yet, so why would losing this round?

That does seem to fly in the face of "fair and reasonable" where costs are concerned. That is unless you realize that Windows is worthless (that is without worth or value) then charging more for a patent than the OS approaches fair and reasonable... at least in a humorous way.

Presumably to encourage people to innovate, create their own inventions and thereby profit instead of failing to do so and instead setting up a racket to extort the work of others.

One method of profiting is to license your inventions to others.

B&N may have a case that the patents in question do not cover their device, but that is different from their claim that patents shouldnt be used to "extract" license fees from them. They might also have a case that the license fees are discriminatory, but that seems unlikely considering that other companies making android devices (some of B&N's competition) are paying those very same fees or cross-licensing their own IP with Microsof

. . . their claim that patents shouldnt be used to "extract" license fees from them.

They aren't claiming that.

They are claiming that they are trying to extort more than the patents would be worth if they were valid:

"Microsoft has impermissibly broadened the physical scope of the ’372, ’780,
’522, ’551, and ’233 patents in furtherance of a plan or scheme orchestrated by Microsoft and
its agents to eliminate or marginalize the competition to Microsoft’s own Windows Phone 7
mobile device operating system posed by the open source Android Operating System and
other open source operating systems. As part of this scheme, Microsoft has asserted patents
that extend only to arbitrary, outmoded, or non-essential design features, but uses these
patents to demand that every manufacturer of an Android-based mobile device take a license
from Microsoft and pay exorbitant licensing fees or face protracted and expensive patent
infringement litigation. The asserted patents do not have a lawful scope sufficient to control
the Android Operating System as Microsoft is attempting to do, and Microsoft’s misuse of
these patents directly harms both competition for and consumers of all eReaders,
smartphones, tablet computers and other mobile electronic devices."

They are also claiming that MS and Nokia illegally colluded to destroy Android using their combined market dominance and patent portfolios:

On information and belief, as part of Microsoft’s recently announced agreement
with Nokia to replace Nokia’s Symbian operating system with Microsoft’s own mobile device
operating system, Microsoft and Nokia discussed and apparently agreed upon a strategy for
coordinated offensive use of their patents. Indeed, in videotaped remarks made two days after
the Microsoft-Nokia agreement was announced, Nokia’s CEO Stephen Elop confirmed that
Microsoft and Nokia had discussed how their combined intellectual property portfolio is
“remarkably strong” and that Microsoft and Nokia intended to use this combined portfolio
both defensively and offensively.1 This type of horizontal agreement between holders of
significant patent portfolios is per se illegal under the antitrust laws, threatens competition for
mobile device operating systems and is further evidence of Microsoft’s efforts to dominate
and control Android and other open source operating systems.

36. The final asserted patent, the ’233 patent, relates to the storing and displaying of annotations of text which is not modifiable. As noted in other portions of this Answer, Affirmative Defenses, and Counterclaims, the claims of the ’233 patent are unenforceable because they were procured via inequitable conduct. During prosecution, Microsoft and its attorneys failed to disclose a prior art reference, U.S. Patent No. 5,146,552 to Cassorla et al., that the European Patent Office identified as pertinent and invalidating. Further, Microsoft even failed to disclose the European Patent Office’s assessment and description of the prior art, despite the fact that such assessment and description conflicted with Microsoft’s representations of the prior art to its invention. Moreover, in addition to being unenforceable, other prior art renders the ’233 patent’s claims invalid. In the ’233 patent itself, Microsoft admits that publishing houses wanted their documents to be in the form of non-modifiable text at the time users wanted to annotate. It was obvious to respond to the demands of both publishing houses and users. In implementing the concept of annotating non-modifiable documents, Microsoft did not have to devise any unique solutions, but merely applied well known techniques to the problem created by the advent of electronic publishing. This was nothing more than the utilization of common sense solutions to a problem, and there is nothing patentable about the concepts allegedly covered by this patent. In any event, neither the NookTM nor Nook ColorTM device employs the subject matter set forth in the ’233 patent, or infringes any valid, enforceable claim of that patent.

There really need to be sanctions applied to attorneys who pull stunts like that.

> What exactly does the european patent office have to do with a US patent suit?

Do you actually believe that European witnesses shouldn't be allowed to testify in US court cases? Because that's approximately what you're saying. The EU patent office found what they believe was prior art and brought this to MS's attention. MS failed to address this in their US patent application.

All of the complaints listed more or less sound like the complaints often repeated everywhere when it comes to using patents as an offensive weapon. The complaints are also quite general. I seriously hope something good comes out of it, but I don't expect it. My initial reaction was "yeah, you are describing pretty much how patent litigation goes..."

The case being made is more for patent reform and less as a defence against the actions which are, at the moment, lawful as far as I can tell.

I"m loving my rooted Nook Color. B&N is handling the production of their tablet the way every company should. If you want to go nuts and brick it, go ahead. We'll be happy to sell ebooks to those who do not, and also to those who do root it.

For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents. I guess that stems from the FOSS mentality, but just because you're willing to give your work away, doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to do the same. You have to allow that other people value their time and work in different ways than you value yourrs. And, just because you think it's not immoral to violate patents, doesn't mean it's immoral to enforce them. Someone steals your car, I'm sure y

Point Number 9? Microsoft and Nokia planned to enforce their patents and litigate patent violaters?

It is not that they each planned to do so. It is that they agreed to each do so in order to supress competition, which makes it an antitrust violation. When two companies collude to suppress competition from a third company, it is an antitrust violation.

For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents.

Attributing a general attitude to Slashdot users is dangerous. But I think you could safely say that generally Slashdot users oppose _software_ patents; a smaller group opposes all patents. For any given patent posted here, there will be an even larger group opposed to that particular patent. Of course, if someone doesn't think a patent should exist, it's perfectly reasonable for them to believe it's O

For some time around here, Slashdot user's general attitude seems to be that it's OK to violate patents. I guess that stems from the FOSS mentality, but just because you're willing to give your work away, doesn't mean you should expect everyone else to do the same. You have to allow that other people value their time and work in different ways than you value yourrs. And, just because you think it's not immoral to violate patents, doesn't mean it's immoral to enforce them.

[...]

The problem is that companies keep prompting them to litigate because companies keep infringing on their patents. If patent holders should not take legal recourse to stop such incidents, then exactly what IS the purpose of a patent, anyways?

Hey, I've got a few questions about when a patent CAN be violated.

0. Is it a violation to publish the body of a patent claim publicly?
1. If not, then is it a violation of a patent to translate it to another language, say French?
2. If not, is it a violation of a patent to print it out of my computer's printer, using postscript?
3. If not, Can I put that print-out in a folder and carry it around? Can I sell a briefcase with the paper inside?
4. Is it an infringement to store and transfer the paten

Patents don't need marketed products to be valid. What about the "non-essential" features MS targets? Well, if one's product includes a feature that violates a patent, Microsoft won't claim the entire product violates it - they will say just THAT feature violates it. Unfortunately that means the product incorporating, or relying on it, can't exist without modification and compensation to MS.

B&N is not arguing that non-essential features are not covered by patents. They are arguing that the patents are

If only it were that simple. I think what B&N is saying is that a Microsoft employee was notified on 3 separate occasions that at least one of these patents would not issue because of prior art and that employee deliberately and knowingly withheld that information from the U.S. patent examiners in violation of U.S. patent law. IANAL and all that.

Now, what if that patent was used in the er, negotiations with HTC or other companies that have agreed to pay these license fees?

I knew it was about protecting the Windows PC OS. You know, where so much of their profits come from they can afford to lose billions annually on things like WP7, Windows Mobile, MSN, BING, etc.

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20110427052238659

"Microsoft demanded an exorbitant royalty (on a per device basis) for a license to its patent portfolio for the NookTM device and at the end of the meeting Microsoft stated that it would demand an even higher per device royalty for any device that acted "more like a computer" as opposed to an eReader."

In Microsofts case i imagine the problem lies more with their reputation than their product. WP7 is behind the times, lacks many basic functions people take for granted in a smartphone and are just a "me too" product.

But, their biggest problem is that people regard Microsoft as a backwards, boring and utterly crappy company unable to release good products. Anyone who ever used a Windows Mobile Phone shy away from WP7 like a beaten dog from a stick. Anyone who has used Windows more or less expect WP7 being about as interesting as Windows 7 or Vista. The brand Microsoft is tarnished to the point almost no marketing in the world can save it.

The Irony of it is that MSFT tarnished their brand by excessive marketing, and pushing into area's they really couldn't support. Combined with bad management decisions, and stupid internal restrictions means that Windows as a whole suffered.

MSFT came out with a tablet edition of the OS in 2002, but 9 years later still don't have a tablet edition of any other software they deploy.

When apple developed the ipad, one of the first set of included apps was a slightly dumbed down, but functional copy of their software.

Back in 2004, I got a really cool Motion Computing tablet. It was 2x the computer an iPad was but was fatally flawed.

It was limited in utility because only the Journal software that came with it, MS One Note and a form CRUD application I forgot the name of really used the tablet features. Had MS truly pen/touch enabled Windows from top top bottom (i.e. larger buttons, smarter click regions, better pen integration to windows GUI controls etc...), their model for tablet computing would have won out years ago

Exactly. I have wanted tablets since I saw slates in 2003-2004 however I noticed that MSFT had basically destroyed slate abilities and made all tablets by them have to be convertibles as you needed a keyboard 90% of the time.

the Ipad, and now Android tablets are showing that you don't need a keyboard except for large data entry.a slashdot post is not large data entry.

Before I got my android phone, A windows mobile device was the best phone I'd ever had. This was back in 2004, mind you, when people were still impressed by colour screens and "polyphonic ringtones", while I was able to watch films and play Doom.

It's true they were the most functional devices around for a while, I liked my HTC/WinMo combination as the best available choice for a while. I didn't want an iPhone, but I'm sure glad that it forced phone interface developers to get a grip. I now have an Android phone and tablet, they're definitely the nicest combination of interface and functionality right now.

Are you kidding? I have a HTC Wizard phone (TI OMAP-850) which is full of cool stuff: IRDA, bluetooth, 3G/EDGE, WiFi, 1.2M camera, qwerty keyboard, etc.. I know these are not impressive specs right now but they were 4 or 5 years ago. If you asked me the question: -what can you do with it? I would answer NOTHING!

It was not good as phone, that is, the user interface was not designed for it. I was much much faster taking of my dumb phone out from my pocket and write a text message using t9 than to go through all the menus in windows mobile, launch the messaging program, slide the qwerty keyboard, wait for the screen to rotate and finally write the message. We can argue the hardware was slow, but the truth is that Microsoft made the BIG error of having the software and hardware division separated by a huge Berlin wall. I disassembled the firmware and ended up realizing that it was compiled for the previous generation of ARM CPU, the Wizard's CPU is a ARMv5 and windows mobile was built for generic ARMv4!!! They (HTC probably) could have made the software adequate for the hardware they were selling but they didn't care. Even Linux with a small desktop manager runs faster on my HTC Wizard than the original firmware!!

It was not good as a internet device, the integrated Internet Explorer was slow, and difficult to use with a pen, a real pain in the ass. I preferred to wait and see some article at home instead of accessing it "right away" through the phone using GPRS.

Activesync was a horrible thing, you cannot imagine how much contacts I lost during a sync. Syncing through exchange was also a nightmare, I can never forget this message: "there was a change in the server, all the data in your phone needs to be deleted and synced again". WTF???

The integrated windows media player was another design stupidity, believe it or not, I had to use VLC (a port of it) because windows media player wasted my battery in less then one hour.

It had an integrated "office" suite which, truth to be told, was completely useless - at least for me.

The only thing I found useful on that phone was using third party instant messaging programs which actually worked well (much better than msn messenger). Other thing that worked well was playing games which actually used the pen interface quite well.

The device at the time cost 600 euros, I paid less than half for it in a ebay bid. Still, I feel it was one of the biggest scams of my life, I just still keep it because it runs Linux and is useful for robotics applications. I hope you feel through my wording how pissed off I still am!

To the general public, the windows brand is associated with desktop and laptop computers...I spoke to someone who is entirely non technical, who brought up a "windows phone" they had seen advertised on tv, and then stated they would never consider buying one because "why would i want windows on a phone?"

They believed that a windows phone would be plagued with malware and blue screens of death, basically bringing all the problems from the pc to their mobile. Now while this is an incorrect assumption, that's the assumption people make when they see the brand windows.

These same people are the ones keeping windows alive on the desktop, because they believe it is an inherent part of desktop computing and often either aren't aware of any alternatives existing at all, or are of the belief that linux is for geeks and macos is extremely expensive. For phones on the other hand, these people are already familiar with existing mobile platforms.

To people who have used earlier versions of windows mobile, the brand has often left a bad taste... Earlier versions were clunky and unreliable, and that's a major disincentive to try the current version... I know several people who had windows mobile 6.x devices, and all of them hated it and have since moved to other non microsoft phones.

To people who have decent knowledge of the smartphone market, windows phone 7 is woefully behind all the other offerings and not really worth considering at this point...

And to geeks, windows phone 7 isn't unix, isn't open, and is from a company known for making poor software.

Windows, the very name gives it away, is a desktop gui system... The interface is an extremely poor fit for use with anything other than a mouse and keyboard. The brand should really be kept where its appropriate because the name has negative connotations in any other field....

The xbox was fairly successful, largely because it disassociated itself from the windows brand...

TO geeks, Windows 7 might be vaguely acceptable for a desktop machine, but it's totally unacceptable for a unit that runs on cells and can't afford to burn cpu cycles promiscuously. (ok, for the first part of that sentence, I'm probably handing over my geek card:)

When you can't come up with a better product, it's time to call in the lawyers.

Patent protection is valid even if you are not the most qualified or successful at implementing your ideas. indeed that's the point. it is supposed to stifle the competition so that you can be completive yourself or force them to pay you.

How can "outmoded" and "inessential features" be considered a defense against a patent? Isn't that the whole point of a patent? doesn't it describe a feature whose duration of being protected is exactly prescribed? It can't be outmoded during this time by definition.

Patent protection is valid even if you are not the most qualified or successful at implementing your ideas. indeed that's the point. it is supposed to stifle the competition so that you can be completive yourself or force them to pay you.

And this is the fatal flaw of patents: patents, which should ideally be a net benefit to society, instead are proving to carry with them a real, measurable loss function. If the patent holder is not the best implementer, then society suffers because the cost to society for

Patent protection is valid even if you are not the most qualified or successful at implementing your ideas. indeed that's the point.

Indeed that's true but...

They don't seem to be arguing that the patent was obvious and incorrectly awarded.

No, that's exactly some of the claims B&N is making, they cite prior art on numerous sections.

FTA

30. During the discussions, Microsoft also threatened Barnes & Noble with claims of infringement of the ’536 and ’853 patents which relate only to simulating mouse inputs using non-mouse devices. The ’853 patent misrepresented the state of the art at the time the patent was filed by stating that “a need exists for permitting a user to perform all operations of a mouse-type device using a stylus.” This, however, is demonstrably incorrect. The ’536 and ’853 patents were filed in November 2000. Long before that time, numerous systems had been developed that enabled computer users to simulate mouse behavior with touch input devices. For example, U.S. Patent No. 5,327,161 to Logan et al., entitled “System and Method for Emulating a Mouse Input Device with a Touchpad Input Device” (the “’161 patent”), was issued in 1994, years before the ’536 and ’853 patents were even filed.

They also use various other afirmative defenses including alledging anti-trust patent collusion with Nokia, and attempted extorsion through thinly veiled threats of litigation. Those past two parts I think are the really interesting part of this. If B&N succeeds at proving that part of the defense, the whole "sue Android out of our way" strategy MS is using will be shut down completely. The part you are refering to, that the patents were used improperly, is, from what I can tell, part of the evidence towards the bad faith negotiations they were making and adds to the anti-trust defense. But it's just a part of the anti-trust allegation and not the whole of it.

Whatever you think of software patents, the anti-trust angle is a potent one here.

The main patent that Microsoft has repeatedly been able to use to extort money (and patent credibility) from makers of linux-based devices is the Fat32 'long/short' name trick. This 'innovation' is essentially a patch to a bad design that nobody would use if they didn't have to use it to be compatible with 90% of the computers out there. TomTom doesn't use FAT32 because it's technically elegant - they use it because their cu

The original purpose of a patent was never to stifle the competition... quite the opposite. The patent gave you a very temporary monopoly (17 years from date of acceptance, originally, back in an era in which nothing all that significant happened technologically in 5-10 year spans) in exchange for your publicly revealing the specific process of your invention. This would allow others to build new things on top of your invention.

As well, the invention doesn't cover an idea. Rather, it's a very specific imple

A lot of bluff and bluster against Microsoft for defending a patent. Barnes and Noble needs to attack the patent or the patent system. Fighting a PR battle is evidence that B&N doesn't have the facts necessary to win the patent fight.

But then MS is fighting a PR battle as well.

Maybe they're both wrong? Maybe they hope to subvert the courts via public pressure? Maybe the patents aren't what the fight is actually about?

B&N cannot expect to change the patent system, and attacking the patents will take years and tens of millions of dollars - with no guaranteed outcome. Given that Microsoft is charging more to license the patents for Android than the cost of an equivalent MS OS license, how can their actions be interpreted as anything but anti-competitive?

A lot of bluff and bluster against Microsoft for defending a patent. Barnes and Noble needs to attack the patent or the patent system. Fighting a PR battle is evidence that B&N doesn't have the facts necessary to win the patent fight.

Go read TFA from Groklaw - It includes a metric shedload of attacks on the validity and applicability of the patents, as well as the "Microsoft is being evil" PR stuff (which could be crucial if the case ever ends up in front of a jury).

Ironically, Microsoft is already fighting the current patent system. They're one of the biggest supporters of patent reform becuase in the end, Microsoft loses way more money defending against patent trolls than it gains from licensing deals.

Well, someone needs to set a precedent that some large corporations are abusing the system. Seems to me a first step to provide insight about the need of a reform. Fighting small patent trolls is not going to make it.

while I see this as a desperate attempt from B&N, they may also have a point. Besides, what is it exclusive to B&N that MS is attacking, that is not in any other reader, including the iPad?

Maybe other companies are licensing tech from MS. Or, maybe they have a large enough tech patent portfolio to assure mutual destruction if MS were to sue. I don't suppose a book retailer has too much in the way of ammo against MS, so they're a safe target.

Of course B&N doesn't have all the facts. Microsoft claims there are more patents it can and will assert but would not reveal which ones without their signing an NDA first. This is extortion and blackmail on Microsoft's part. They are certainly not dealing straight and honest. But that is precisely how Microsoft has been dealing with their patent threats over the past what...? decade? Microsoft claims "Linux infringes on no fewer than X patents" and then won't say which patents they are preventing

Yes because Microsoft has learned from SCO's success on the matter. Okay, so SCO was asserting copyrights (which they did not have) and claiming evidence (which they did not have). This is different -- it's software patents or "on the internet" patents.

>> I can't help but wonder if Google isn't providing assistance and moral support to B&N, in the B&N defense of Android.

I'd chalk it up as something simpler: the dead-tree book market is imploding, B&N is trying to compete with Kindle by offering the Nook, and suddenly here comes MS wanting a cut off the top for claimed violations of dubious patents. B&N is refusing to take the hit on their declining bottom line just to satisfy a patent troll.

MS may not want to go directly after Google. But not just because Google has huge cash reserves, their own legal staff, and less love for Microsoft than most companies MS goes after. But as well, Google doesn't really make hardware.

The whole loophole by which software patents were made "legal" in the 80s was the idea that the simple fact of software being part of a hardware system was not sufficient to invalidate the patentability of the whole system. This sort of makes sense... here's my system. The PTO ha